196Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: underclassmen and the draft

> --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean LaVergne" <deanlav@y...> wrote:
> > Actually, I'm working with some economists at the Federal Reserve
> Bank in
> > New York who is testing that theory (among others). I'll let you
> know the
> > results when their results are in.
> >
> >
> > Dean L.
>
> Some of you have mentioned the need for playing time to develop
> skills of younger players. This is true to some extent. But I
> wonder if certain players, as a result of physical development, just
> get better because of the maturation process and that it would not
> matter if the player spent 4 years with Dean Smith or 2 years with
> Kevin Mackey he is still going to great because of his god-given
> abilities. Obivously, you need some polish but I wonder if that is
> only 10% of the puzzle whereas the physical/mental maturation process
> is a much larger piece.

Yes, I'll be interested to see what those Fed economists come up with.
They undoubtedly know the econometric techniques that'll be needed and I'm
presuming that they have the basketball knowledge necessary to
successfully apply them.

In particular, people here have come up with several hypotheses for player
development:

1. simple age (a 24 year old will play better than an 18 year old)
2. receiving training (including practice time, perhaps this is best
measured by practice minutes, or number of practices, or months of
practice -- though that'll be practically identical with using simple age)
3. minutes (or games, or seasons) of actual playing time
4. minutes (or games, or seasons) of non-garbage playing time

For explanations 2, 3, and 4 there are further some qualitative
differences to investigate: are all minutes the same, or does it make a
difference if they're experienced in the NBA, NCAA, (or NAIA, or the
now-defunct CBA, or Europe, or ???). Also even within those categories,
there are differences: would four years at UNC be the same as four years
at, say, UHouston? Would a season of NBA experience be the same at, say,
Phoenix (which always seems to be able to come up with little heralded
players who end up making good contributions) or under George Karl (who at
least in Seattle was notorious for burying rookies and never letting them
produce or develop, Eric Snow being the most notorious example).

Probably, player development is aided by all four of the factors listed,
but the question is which factors are more important than others, and
which ones would lead to the fastest development of a player (And is
fastest best? Most people think that it would be a mistake to rush even a
20-year old pitcher to the major leagues, ditto for most 18-year old
position players; on the other hand some 20-year old position players
such as Ken Griffey Jr and Alex Rodriguez were ready to play).

To make matters even more complex, there are undoubtedly players for whom
college coaching is the way to go, and others who would do better in the
NBA developmental league or on the bench in the NBA. Depending on
personality, ability to live on one's own, coachability, level of coaching
already received in high school, etc. etc. I don't think any study can
definitively provide an answer for individual players, but the Fed might
be able to provide an overall average.